Now you are just being a dick. I"m trying to be nice here and make sure i understand your argument.
In most cases, courts won't look at consideration at all, and outside of the US, whether consideration is required at all varies.
" you can't have a contract with an intended two-way exchange of obligations. "
This is false, of course.
You can have unilateral contracts accepted by performance of something that a contract requests, contracts implied in fact, contracts implied in law, and all sorts of interesting quasi-contracts, plenty of which still have warranties.
But that's also "first week of contracts".
"I don't think you understand -- they are exactly the same argument. A sale involves a contract. A license without a contract is gratuitous."
Not in all cases, actually, but if you are going to act like you have above, i'm not horribly interested in continuing the conversation, we'll just see what happens when someone gets sued over the WTFPL.
> " you can't have a contract with an intended two-way exchange of obligations. "
> This is false, of course.
Except, not.
> You can have unilateral contracts accepted by performance of something that a contract requests,
You can have contracts accepted by performance as described, but they aren't unilateral. Acceptance by performance is a mechanism for demonstrating acceptance (hence the name) of a contract offer with mutual obligation while simultaneously fulfilling some or all of the obligations on one side.
> contracts implied in fact,
Which are contracts where the acceptance of mutual obligation (and perhaps the actual content of the mutual obligation) is inferred from non-verbal communication, not an exception to the requirement for an intended two-way exchange of obligations.
> contracts implied in law, and all sorts of interesting quasi-contracts,
quasi-contracts are another name for implied-in-law contracts, which are not actual contracts, but equitable arrangements; given the nature of the equitable basis for these -- particularly the direction they run -- it would be odd to see implied warranties, or even some equitable analog, mattering to them except to reduce liability that might be due to the provider. But equity can be be weird, so I wouldn't rule it out entirely that there might be some relevance there.
Now you are just being a dick. I"m trying to be nice here and make sure i understand your argument. In most cases, courts won't look at consideration at all, and outside of the US, whether consideration is required at all varies.
" you can't have a contract with an intended two-way exchange of obligations. "
This is false, of course. You can have unilateral contracts accepted by performance of something that a contract requests, contracts implied in fact, contracts implied in law, and all sorts of interesting quasi-contracts, plenty of which still have warranties.
But that's also "first week of contracts".
"I don't think you understand -- they are exactly the same argument. A sale involves a contract. A license without a contract is gratuitous."
Not in all cases, actually, but if you are going to act like you have above, i'm not horribly interested in continuing the conversation, we'll just see what happens when someone gets sued over the WTFPL.